Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	discipline_n	government_n	3,314	5	6.9877	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

grammaticall sense of it By your example are all contrary parties taught to plead the Co●enant those you call Sectaries Schismaticks c. plead the Covenant eng●ging each to go before others in matters of Reformation the Presbyt●rian pleads Covenant engaging conformity with the Church of Scotland the Parliamenteer pleads Covenant engaging to pre●erve the rights and priviledges of Parliament the Royalist pleads Covenant engaging to defend the Kings Majesties person and authority the Armists plead Covenant engaging to preserve the Liberties of the Kingdome c. So that you have made the Covenant a meere contradi●●ious thing c. Answ. 1. I wish all contrary parties would plead Covenant and keep Covenant according to the good example of the Ministers 2. Because all contrary parties do plead the Covenant to different ends must it needs be charged on the Subscribers that they make the Covenant a contradictious thing because Prebyterian plead Scripture to warrant Presbyteriall Government and Papi●●s Prelates Erastians Seekers and Independents plead Scripture too to warrant quite contrary wayes must the Presbyterians beare all the blame that they make the Scripture a contradictious thing 3. 'T is you and your party not the Ministers who make the Covenant a contradictious thing the Covenant tyes to preserve the Kings person yet you plead Covenant to destroy his person the Covenant bindes to preserve the priviledges of Parliament yet you plead Covenant to destroy their priviledges the Covenant engageth to extirpate Heresie and Schisme and you plead Covenant to tolerate them the Covenant binds to preserve the Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government of the Church of Scotland and you plead Covenant to cry up your owne kinde of Discipline and Government and c●ie downe theirs the Covenant ties us to endeavour after an Uniformity in Religion and forme of Church Government and you plead Covenant to allow men to be what Religion they list and set up what forme of Church Government they please Now let the world judge who makes the Covenant a contradictious thing or to use your owne phrase like unto one of the Diabolicall Oracles of the Heathens to speake nothing certain but ambigui●ies 4. I wish you would consider that the Malignants and you are equally partiall in the Covenant they cry out against S●hisme and Heresie but not so zealous against Prophanenesse and Prelacy they cry up the preservation of the Kings person but not a word for the priviledges of Parliament and are not you altogether as partiall you cry out against malignity but not a word against Schism and Heresie though the Covenant is expresly against both you cry up the Liberties of the people but not a word for the preservation of the Kings person and the priviledges of the Parliament though engaged by the Covenant to the one as well as to the other But the Godly Ministers were impartiall in the Covenant of their God they held themselves bound in their places and callings to oppose Malignity as well as Heresie to defend the Kings person and the Parliaments priviledges as well as the Peoples Liberties in fine they hold themselves engaged to one thing in the Covenant as to another But you goe on The obligation say you is for the preservation of His person and Authority Not for his person simply but his person and Authority if both come in competition then the greater is to bee preferd before the lesse that is his authority before his person Answ. I have answered this cavil when I cleared the Protestation from your grosse mistakes I shall say therefore the lesse here I have but three things to say by way of answer viz. 1. T is to be observed when the Covenant was made not before the King had done acts contrary to his just authority but long after the King had set up His standard declared both Houses Traitors and engaged in person in the head of His Army yet I say after all this the Parliament thought fit to make this Covenant to preserve his person that all the world might bear witnesse with their Consciences of their Loyalty and that they had no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Maj●sties just power and greatnesse 2. I would as● why would you take the Covenant to preserve the Kings person even then when His person authority stood more in competition then afterward they did for then He was in the Head of an Army but since cast himself on His people then unwilling to yeeld to any reasonable terms but since offred more for the Parliaments safety peoples good though I wisht hee had yeelded to more then ever any Prince that sate upon the English Throne 3 Is it not most inequitable that you should● take away the life of the King because His person and authority stood in competition and yet you and your faction the only men that hindred the Kings person and authority from a conjunction with His two Houses of Parliament The truth is the Kings person and the Armies designes stood both in competition and therefore they must destroy the one to carry on the other If the King in person would have had ingaged in a combination or conjunction with the Armies Counsels all the blood that had been spilt or the evills that Hee had done would have been forgotten you would not once have muttered that his person and authority had then stood in any ● Competition But you plead that the Covenant binds us to preserve His Person in the preservation and defence of the true Religion true Religion doth not say if the Subject do kill and murder c. he shall be ●o and ●o punisht but if the King do these things● he must not be medled withall by any but God alone true Religion saith he that shed mans blood by man shall his blood be shed the murderer shall surely be put to death if then the King be a murderer true Religion commands that h●e bee put to death Answ. 1. Was the Kings person and Religions preservation so inconsistent that there was no way to preserve the one but by destroying the other I am su●e the death of the King was a stain to Religion I am not so sure that his life would have been such a wound to it whether purposes were in his heart to alter it I know not yet if power were not in his hands how could Religion be indangered 2. If true Religion doth not say if the King kill or steal c he must not be medled withall by any but by God alone then surely John Goodwin must be of a false Religion for he said T is the just Preregative of the Persons of the Kings in WHAT CASE SOEVER to he secure from the violence of men and their lives to be as consecrated Corn meet to be reapt and gat●ered ONLY by the band of God himselfe 3. The King had spilt much blood by His Forces for I know of none kill'd by His own hands at Edgehill and many

by the mouth of the Prophet Hosea saith that He will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the House of Jehu That is the blood of Ahabs 70 sons which was shed by the Rulers of Iezreel at Iehu's command I wish those who had a chief hand in putting the King to death would consider whether a Politicall design rather then a conscientious respect to justice was not a chiefe motive ingaging them to that horrid attempt 4. Most of those men in scripture who spilt the blood of their Kings although wicked did not dye a naturall death but came to an untimely end T is said in 2 King 21. 23. that the servants of Ammon conspired against Him and slew the King in His own House then 't is said in the very next verse the people of the Land slew all them that had conspired against King Ammon Againe Elah King of Israel was slaine by Zimri a Captaine of his chariots as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk 't is said Zimri went in and smote him and killed him But what became of Zimri Jezabel could ask had Zimri peace that slew his master 2 King 9. 31. No he had not for when 't was told in the camp of Israel that Zimri had conspired and also slain the King upon this the Army of Israel fell into a mutiny made Omri King and came against Zimri who for fear was driven to run into the palace of the Kings house put the house on fire about his ears and was there burnt to ashes that was the end that Zimri came to Another King that was killed by his own Subjects was Iehoash King of Iudah 't is said his servants arose and made a conspiracy and slew Jehoash in the House of Millo But what became of these men that slew Iehoash 't is said expresly 2 King 14. 5. that as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in the hand of Amaziah the son of Jehoash that he slew his servants which had slain the King his father So likewise Shallum killed Zecharaiah King of Israel but he himself was soon afterward killed by Menahim the sonne of Gadi as 't is storied 2 King 15. 10 14. Again Pekah the son of Remaliab killed Pekaiah King of Israel and soon after he himselfe was killed by Hoshea as 't is recorded 2 King 15. 25. 30. Many other instances might bee alledged if I should exactly looke over the Histories of the Kings of Israel but these may suffice 5. T is to be observed that Omri who did succeed Zimri who came to so untimely an end was made King by the Souldiers or Army of Israel and was he better then the rest no he was rather worse 't is said expresly that Omri wrought evill in the sight of the Lord and did worse then all that were before him It is my wi●h that those Rulers or Representatives or cal them what you wil who have the rule of the Kingdome now in their hands and have gotten it by the power of an Army doe not worse then all the Kings that ever went before that we feel not their little fingers heavyer upon us then the Kings loins 6. The children of Israel from Saul their first King to Zedekiah the last which was about 480 yeares were never under such intolerable oppression and misery as in the times of those Kings before mentioned who were so put to death such violent removalls of their Kings made such strange alterations and popular commotions in the Kingdom of Israel that the people had not peace or settlement but lay under the miseries either of oppression or Civil wars thus it was after Zimri King of Israel was burnt in the place of the Kings house then Tibni and Omri had a contest about a succession or claime to the Kingdome upon this 't is said the people of Israel were divided into two parts half to make Tibni King another halfe followed Omri to have him King upon which a bloody war followed for three years and upward T is my prayer that a war might not follow in England as did in Israel This instance may suffice in stead of many I shall mention no more It seems these Ministers of Jesus Christ in London I mean these subscribers could aquiesce in such concessions from the King c. then a little after the Ministers of Jesus Christ in London plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the concessions of the King at Newport which by the testimony of the whole Ministry of Scotland acquiesced in would destroy both Religion and Covenant Answ. 1. T is no wonder that you who make so little conscience to maintain errors should make no more of speaking falshood and that not only against the Ministers but against the Parliament also you say the Parliament did acquiesce in the Kings concessions which they did not yea they did wholly wave that question Whether the Kings Answers to the Propositions of both Houses were satisfactory and like men of wisdome honor and conscience they voted only this That the Answers of the King to the Propositions of both Houses are a ground for the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace of the Kingdome 2. The Ministers did not plead Covenant for the Parliaments acquiescing in the Kings concessions I am sure their Representation and Vindication hath no such intimation in them the Ministers did hope and beleeve the Parliament would have demanded more and the King yeelded to more for the good of the Kingdom 3. The Ministers of the Church of Scotland did not say that the Parliament did or would acquiesce in the Kings concessions as satisfactory but only they gave a timely caution that if they should be acquiesced in it would bee dangerous and destructive to Religion and Covenant Look back into your former course of life and call to mind how many oaths and subscriptions you have made from time to time over and over c. And how have you directly for sworn your selves against the light and sense of your own judgment and conscience have wee not cause to judg better of many of the Prelaticall party who being men of learning and conscience and never so violent against their opposers in Church and State as your selves c. Answ. 1. Is it not more then enough for you to accuse the Reverend and godly Ministers of falsity vain-glory malignity but must you now lay Perjury to their charge also 2. Suppose any of them I am sure all did not did swear or subscribe to the Church-government by Bishops and to the book of Common-prayer for 't is of that you speak and should now renounce them yet 1. I thought that you would account it a badg of their glory and not asperse them with the stain of Perjury for thus doing 2. Was it agreeable to the Law of love or rules of Christianity to say that so many godly and conscientious Ministers did forsweare themselves against